Slashdot Mirror

Description on how Moore made two speeches into what the viewer will think is one: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine /scenes/hestonrally1.htm

Read the sources.
This time he gives sources, and I suggest you actually look into them. In the past, he has included in his references sources that actually refute his claims.
I'm unsure of how prevalent that is in this instance, but some people are complaining allready.
His attempt to back up Bowling for Columbine, Wacko Attacko's, did not have much substance, for example.

If you really take an interest, you can read The Dave Kopel article and compare it with what Moore says.

Lying without uttering a false sentence?
What I'd like to have somebody do, preferably one from each "side", is go through F911 and find out wether Moore actually makes any false statement. No doubt he's lying with film and doing some Soviet Russia document revision, but saying something like "In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.", that can't be a direct lie because the paper actually wrote that. Wether he actually WAS on vacation 42% of the time makes no difference to a rigid parsing of that statement.

And Farenhype911 just looks like talking heads to me. The Mike Wilson movie looks funnier.

And click (Flash)

BTW: Isn't it rather US-centric to have the star sprangeled banner as a logo for the politics section? (Yes, I know you're in the U.S.)

No one has discredited Moore's statements, or even argued coherently with them.

This turns out not to be the case. See here,here, here,here, and here.

Then, do a google search for "Michael Moore liar".

-jcr

There's some facts for you. Open your eyes.

Michael Moore is a "documentarian" in the same sense that Leni Riefenstahl was a "documentarian", and Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary in the same sense that Triumph of the Will was a documentary. (Both movies also won prominent French awards... coincidence?) Fahrenheit 9/11 makes Fox News seem like a bastion of journalistic integrity by comparison.

Michael Moore's arguments lack a logical flow or any direction whatsoever. He seems to just string together a sequence of often unrelated anti-Bush/Iraq War arguments (which have the depth of talking points) hoping to rile up his already anti-Bush/Iraq War audience.

Moore builds his whole argument upon omissions, discarding any and all facts which are not in accordance with his world view. The claim that there are no factual inaccuracies in the movie is partly true; however, this is no great feat, as the movie is filled with omissions, innuendos, and logical fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc). For example, I could very easily convince someone with no knowledge of 20th century European History that Hitler was a great guy, simply through omissions and without making one factually inaccurate statement i.e. Hitler was a great connoisseur of art; his love of art lead to him amassing a great art collection, spanning art from all over Europe. Hitler also implemented economic policies which restored Germany's shattered economy and made Germany into one of the most powerful economic powers of its time. He was much loved by his people, and took great pride in his heritage, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure my point has become evident, and I no longer need to pursue this perverted example.

Moore is well known for his editing prowess, and I have no reason to believe that he does not continue using his "skills" in Fahrenheit 9/11. There are several well known instances of Moore's editing in Bowling For Columbine i.e. Heston's tie changing colours, the clip of Heston's speech not being the one he gave right after Columbine, but rather a different one altogether (1st Google Result on Query), etc. I'm sure there are many other examples in both movies.

Moore makes several assertions in Fahrenheit 9/11 which not only make no logical sense, but also contradict with other statements he made in the movie. Moore mentions the well documented effort on Saddam's behalf to murder George H. W. Bush (probably intended as an argumentum ad hominem), then he refers to the sovereign nation of Iraq, which had never threatened or harmed a single American life. Ok, let's see, Moore himself admits that Saddam tried to kill H. W. Bush. Furthermore, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and constantly threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. First of all, there are plenty of Americans in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Furthermore, plenty of American lives were lost in Desert Storm, which was clearly in response to a war of unilateral aggression on Saddam's behalf (then again, Moore may very well oppose Desert Storm, as well as England and France declaring war on Germany when they invaded Poland... who knows). After the end of Desert Storm, Americans remained in the region and constantly flew sorties to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq and make sure they minimized the number of Kurds and Shiites massacred by Saddam and his gang of (Sunni) thugs. Anyways, the Iraqis constantly attempted to shoot down the American planes that were merely enforcing the UN sanctioned No-fly Zones. (Seems like threatening American lives to me.)

Ok, moving on... Moore attempts to make it seem like there is no link between Saddam and international terrorism, where in reality Saddam offered USD $10000-20000 to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers (what a great guy) (

Michael Moore is a "documentarian" in the same sense that Leni Riefenstahl was a "documentarian", and Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary in the same sense that Triumph of the Will was a documentary. (Both movies also won prominent French awards... coincidence?) Fahrenheit 9/11 makes Fox News seem like a bastion of journalistic integrity by comparison.

Michael Moore's arguments lack a logical flow or any direction whatsoever. He seems to just string together a sequence of often unrelated anti-Bush/Iraq War arguments (which have the depth of talking points) hoping to rile up his already anti-Bush/Iraq War audience.

Moore builds his whole argument upon omissions, discarding any and all facts which are not in accordance with his world view. The claim that there are no factual inaccuracies in the movie is partly true; however, this is no great feat, as the movie is filled with omissions, innuendos, and logical fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc). For example, I could very easily convince someone with no knowledge of 20th century European History that Hitler was a great guy, simply through omissions and without making one factually inaccurate statement i.e. Hitler was a great connoisseur of art; his love of art lead to him amassing a great art collection, spanning art from all over Europe. Hitler also implemented economic policies which restored Germany's shattered economy and made Germany into one of the most powerful economic powers of its time. He was much loved by his people, and took great pride in his heritage, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure my point has become evident, and I no longer need to pursue this perverted example.

Moore is well known for his editing prowess, and I have no reason to believe that he does not continue using his "skills" in Fahrenheit 9/11. There are several well known instances of Moore's editing in Bowling For Columbine i.e. Heston's tie changing colours, the clip of Heston's speech not being the one he gave right after Columbine, but rather a different one altogether (1st Google Result on Query), etc. I'm sure there are many other examples in both movies.

Moore makes several assertions in Fahrenheit 9/11 which not only make no logical sense, but also contradict with other statements he made in the movie. Moore mentions the well documented effort on Saddam's behalf to murder George H. W. Bush (probably intended as an argumentum ad hominem), then he refers to the sovereign nation of Iraq, which had never threatened or harmed a single American life. Ok, let's see, Moore himself admits that Saddam tried to kill H. W. Bush. Furthermore, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and constantly threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. First of all, there are plenty of Americans in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Furthermore, plenty of American lives were lost in Desert Storm, which was clearly in response to a war of unilateral aggression on Saddam's behalf (then again, Moore may very well oppose Desert Storm, as well as England and France declaring war on Germany when they invaded Poland... who knows). After the end of Desert Storm, Americans remained in the region and constantly flew sorties to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq and make sure they minimized the number of Kurds and Shiites massacred by Saddam and his gang of (Sunni) thugs. Anyways, the Iraqis constantly attempted to shoot down the American planes that were merely enforcing the UN sanctioned No-fly Zones. (Seems like threatening American lives to me.)

Ok, moving on... Moore attempts to make it seem like there is no link between Saddam and international terrorism, where in reality Saddam offered USD $10000-20000 to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers (what a great guy) (Google Link, scroll down)

The USA does the same thing, Lockheed Martin converts old Titan missiles for satellite launching purposes. See this story for some pictures.
Michael Moore featured this plant in his movie, calling it a weapons factory that makes weapons of mass destruction. When someone challenged him about this, he said that such a rocket could launch a spy satellite that could be the one that starts a war, so he still thinks it's justified to call satellite-launching rockets "weapons of mass destruction".

At some F911 showings in rightwing areas, they have cops in the theater, supposedly to quell possible disturbances but in reality apparently just to intimidate people.

Hmm...you have any evidence to back that up? Maybe there's actual reason to fear far-left extremism and hyperbole that is thrown out by Michael Moore (I admit, his movies are entertaining...unfortunately they are chocked full of lies). You know, anti-capitalists have this thing about rioting (see: Seattle G8 summit) to prove that they are peace-loving, bleeding-heart individuals.

I think it's rather funny that because someone sees a police officer in a theatre in a conservative area you assume that it is for intimidation. Perhaps you should collaborate with Moore on his next film, since you guys seem to do the same level of research before spouting off something as fact.

BTW: I'm not a fan of Bush...in fact...I can't stand him. However, left-wing nuts must be pointed out along with the right-wingers....

Peace.

yes I'm a troll.

But go on living in your fantasy world that michael moore is a saint or whatever you want to belief. Michael Moore has made his fair share of money off of Columbine and now 9/11 by lying and decieving. Well i haven't seen farenheit 9/11, but he did seem to already start off on a bad leg by stealing his title from Fahrenheit 451. And according to Ray Bradbury, Michael Moore lied to Ray Bradbury as well. An update to that article, apperently moore never contacts Bradbury after saying he would. Another Lie? go figure.

Funny thing about this moderation is /. is basically doing what it decries people like bush for doing. Pot meet kettle.

... you might want to learn a thing or two on the filmmaker.

Micheal Moore speaks from his point of view in all his movies. IMHO, his point of view is extremely liberal, and you have to take that into account. His movies are food for thought and great for generating discussion. However, I do believe Moore can be just as manipulative and decieving as he claims Bush is in his movies. I cannot blaim Moore for arguing his opinion as best he can but I do believe alot of the public believes all he says is objective. I myself thought so when I saw Bowling for Columbine but my friend pointed me to this link, Bowling for Truth, that disputes Moore's claims. What Moore has done with his movie and generating discussion is great for America but take what he says with a grain of salt.

I've read several reviews, and they all contain 2 points that give me pause. The first is that this film is a "documentary" and the second is that it's very, very biased with only one point of view provided. Take the recent CNN, or NYT reviews for example.

According to webster a documenary is "factual and objective". How can this film be considered a "documentary" when even the most favorable reviewer(CNN in our example) comments that it's not even close to fair or balanced?

Considering Michaels last error and bias filled "documentary" aren't Michael Moores movies more "commentary" or propoganda? Why do people insist in calling obviously biased (ie not objective) and factually inaccurate movies "documentaries"? With so much questionable content - can these films even be called good movies? Remember the first amendment protects false speech just as much as it protects truthful speech.

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Whats even sadder is that many people will simply ignore the facts if they don't agree with their opinion. With that fact in play, perhaps an objective documentary is dead. After all - a clear and objective presentation would require a great deal of thought on a complicated issue with no easy answers.

Instead of honest debate we get comments like "The arabs aren't ready for democracy". At one time, blacks weren't ready to sit at the front of the bus, women weren't ready to vote and latino's weren't ready for white schools. The pundits that made the aforementioned comments were wrong and bigotted. Some things never change.

cluge
AngryPeopleRule

Michael Moore wiki, exposed, and analysed.

See the Sources critical of Michael Moore in the wiki for more links. I saw the movie yesterday, and although I believe there are two sides to every story, and that Moore has twisted some of the facts, there are still some alarming truths within that should not be ignored.

Check out this. I'm a pretty radical guy and I don't care much for moore either. The man got too big for his head.

Well, the guy did say his one purpose with the movie was to unseat George W. Bush. How much more evidence do you need?

Here are some sites/articles that might be helpful:

Bowling For Truth
Washington Post article
Washington Times article

I wouldn't take anything Moore says without a supply of salt. Not that I completely trust the first website, either.

--RJ

For you who love destructive criticism: :) j/k

First, there was request to provide examples that Mr. Moore is spewing propaganda. Read the quotations I posted and see the link below. "Outrageously manipulative"

By definition, propaganda is the systematic propagation of a doctrine. So yes, he's spewing it, voicing it, filming it, producting it. Choose your adverb. Spew seems more appropriate to me because of what Mr. Moore embodies.

I never said Mr. Moore did not have a right to say what he wants, I only present the argument that what he says and how he says it shouldn't be taken at face value or classified incorrectly.

It is my opinion that when one presents his or her opinion, it should be considered an editorial or commentary, just like this post.

What is this guy about?
Mr. Moore created the impression in the public that his movie was somehow being censored. This was a blatant attempt to pander to individuals who put emotion before critical thought (IMHO). All done to generate hype for his movie. It was a complete fabrication and untrue, but it's a great example of what Mr. Moore is all about.
Disney never intended to release the feature via Miramax, only to help produce it. I believe thats changed now because of the attention, though.

What is amazing to me is how the press jumped all over the censorship bandwagon, but that has since been proven to be a lie and you can hardly find a reference to the masquerade. Censorship is a red flag word that sells papers. Lest we forget they're in this to make money, right?

Propaganda is not inherently evil by any means. The vocal open source community puts forth its own arguments for using Linux etc. The difference is these arguments (when not tainted with anti-MS garbage) are normally constructive and present a good point.

However, when the only argument for using Linux is "because it's not windows" or "because windows sucks", it looses it's luster somewhat. An argument may be true, but when presented as opinion, you are making the dicision for your listener.

Michael Moore is a talented individual who creates a persuasive product to not only express his view points, but to persuade you to agree with him. I believe, as a documentary, it's tainted because he, if past behavior is any indication of future performance (see http://www.bowlingfortruth.com), presents facts out of context and not the whole truth.
If you want examples, I suggest this search as a good starting point.

I do not believe the inclusion of short video clips and a voice over constitute the classification of 'documentary'. Its most likely purely editorial comment. I can film women at an abuse center and build up to the point where I ask Mr. Kerry if he's stopped beating his wife. Does that make it a documentary?

As far as the wonders of radical politics and the great advancements it's brought to the world. Let us not forget the Nazi Party, the Crusades, McCarthyism, Fascism, the KKK, Genocide, and other atrocities.
Have there been positive things that come from extreme politics? Yes, absolutely. But, IMHO, extreme politics must been taken in context and adoption of these beliefs by individuals should only be done with careful forethought and research. Woman's suffrage, civil rights, democratic governance all ring true to what is good and proper.

Vigilance against injustice and untruth is the responsibility of the individual, not just the press, not just the government, and not just Michael Moore.
Freedom of the Press is a critical part of the checks and balances of the American government. However, which press you read and believe should always be tempered (IMHO) with what you, as an individual, believe. The truth usually tends to fall somewhere in the middle, so extremist argu

So if you don't like the Hardylaw article, try this one: www.bowlingfortrugh.com.

They analyize every scene of the movie and point out what Moore does to mislead the viewer.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

A very nice, scene-by-scene deconstruction of "Bowling for Columbine".

Bowling for Truth Bank Scene.

Try that. I'm beginning to think America's problem is not guns or violence or liberals or conservatives, it's trying to preach to the choir that your side has it all right.

While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

He doesn't really debunk anything, now does he?

Wacko Attacko's??

More like spoof documentary, if it's anything like Bowling for Columbine. Whilst I may or may not agree with his messages, it does not do his cause any good to present lies as truths. He'd have a far more legitimate message if he presented the facts, instead of dressing them up to look fantastical. If you are anti-gun or anti-Bush, Michael Moore's fictions hurt your cause. It's like lying on your CV (resume). Whilst you may have learnt the C skills and be a C guru, saying you have x years of commercial experience when you don't only makes you look highly incredible when you are found out.

Ah yes, "Bowling for Columbine", the answer to the age-old question, "when is a documentary not a documentary?"

Read about Michael Moore using strawmen for defence.

He has an agenda. And he's throwing sand in our eyes.

Sure, the US have a gun lobby. Some of those who talk back are gun advocates and right wingers. But not all those who speak out against Michael Moore are "gun nuts". I don't own a gun, and neither does Richard Bushnell, the operator of that site.
You don't even have to be "conservative" to see that Michael Moore plays fast and loose with the truth.

Let's take the bank scene as an example. He represents his critics as saying that he used actors and a stage to "stage" the scene. No critics said that. They said the gun buy was pre-arranged, the bank employees not doing what they usually would have, i.e. staged, and cut to look different than what it was.

I was happy to see Wesley Clark drop out. Him as president with Michael Moore as information minister? Scary as Hell.

Go watch Bowling for Columbine.

I'm one of those people who can't understand why some people in the US think they need guns to protect themselves from crime, and even the government. But I'd just like to share that link.

Yeah, Bowling for Columbine had that kind of stuff too!

Just put up a picture, then a newspaper with everything blurred, but the sentence "48 hours after", and then another picture from a year later. Technically not a forgery, but people will still end up believing that both events were only 48 hours apart, rather than a year...

Yes, we all love Michael Moore.

In no civilized society is free taken to automatically mean with no restrictions. Most of us live as "free" individuals in "free" countries. Many of us have "free" checking accounts a few of which may have even come with a "free" gun. However, restrictions must and do exist for all of these freedoms.
While you could argue that free software need not suffer from restrictions of use, it is foolish to ever presume that free should inherently incorporate a lack of restrictions. In fact, modern consumerism has taught us that the term "free" should elict the immediate response "what's the catch?"

It's funny: Laugh!
Compare with the email from Robbin Ward here.

If Bowling for Columbine is a contemporary documentary, then RoTK is a historical documentary.

Anyone who believes Michael Moore has any credibility whatsoever will probably not think so after following this link: Bowling For Truth

Except that Michael Moore got an Oscar for lying.

Charlton Heston would refrain from twisting the truth and would refrain from twisting the words of a doddering old man that has Alzheimer's

Someone who thinks that Bowling for Columbine made sense makes me paranoid. And I know this is just a conincidence, "daveashcroft," but even our very own Ashcroft that inspires so much paranoia within our borders hasn't proposed some of the measures our more "enlightened" European friends are taking with respect to infringing people's privacy.

I happened to have seen Bowling for Columbine yesterday.